ACTN POI plluggable week (September 19th,2023)

Attendees

• [] Dieter Beller
• Jean-Francois Bouquier
• Daniele Ceccarelli
• [] Ori Gerstel
• Aihua Guo
• [] Esther Lerouzic
• Julien Meuric
• Italo Busi
• [] Gert Grammel
• Gabriele Galimberti
• [] Yuji Tochio
• [] Enrico Griseri
• [] Sergio Belotti
• [] Victor Lopez
• [] Haomian Zheng
• [] Igor Bryskin
• [] Dirk Schroetter
• [] Brent Foster
• [] Jiang Sun (CMCC)
• [] Prasenjit Manna (cisco)
• [] Jose’ Angel Perez
• Peter Landon
• Nigel Davis (Ciena)
• Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
• [] Fabio Peruzzini
• [] Gene
• [] Manuel Lopez
• Roberto Manzotti
• Paolo Volpato
• Bradley Riapolov

Admin

draft-poidt-ccamp-actn-poi-pluggable-02.txt version posted for for IETF-117
Oscar presented the draft to IETF-117.

Nigel posted the draft-davis-ccamp-photonics-plug-arch-00 to add a third way to manage the pluggable routers and presented to IETF-117. Need to check whether the Nigel draft alignment with actn arch.

draft-poidt-ccamp-actn-poi-pluggable-02.txt run for poll to be WG doc.

Fabio Peruzzini still to be added as a contributor

Review APs (action point)

Closed Issues

Next calls

Next call will be regular on Sept. 19th, 2023

General discussion

OIF to propose a separate channel to manage/control the pluggables (Nigel/Oscar to give more visibility), although this is a 2 years far proposal.
OIF IPRs do not allow to share yet any info on the above matter.
The activity was just announced, we’ll see any further detail on it.

Jeff to warn to keep the solution simple (at least for the moment) so we preserve and lower the iterop issues (that is option 1 and 2).
Jeff clarify He was concerned about the interoperability among the vendors.
Feedbacks on Nigel proposal will come soon (option 3).

Restart the discussion on the Arch and work on the ACTN POI Coherent Module Yang model proposal (between PNC and MDSC). Phil Bedard will make a proposal.

Preliminary Comments on Phil are suggesting to keep a good alignment to IETF models (i/f Yang and TOpology), T-API, and
OpenConfig manifest.
Action is to work with Phil on this direction and make the gap analisys (Daniele and Gab. and Italo action).

Discussion on gap analisys:

• Tunnel model definition from the router perspective, either from WSON and SSON side.
• Address either the Pluggable and the Integrated transceivers.
• Associate the Optical tunnel to the Ethernet link
• L1 (OTN), L2 (Eth), “inverse multiplexing” cases (?)

Action to All: raise any usecase not yet mentioned in the discussion.

Scope of the draft (e.g. metro, long haul, network configuration, etc.) to be clarified.

Check again on the draft terminology, please add issues in case of modification needed.
Need to open issues on GitHub in order to track the changes.
Open issues in GitHub on the two above statements

issues on agenda

Discussion

Oscar suggested to add some Yang models examples to give an
idea on the draft evolution to ccamp. Unfortunately a real
discussion on this matter is not yet started, We can just present the plans to evolve the draft.

Ways to operate:

1. Add the Yang models to the current draft
2. Generate a new draft to specify the Yang models related to this draft
3. Augment existing Yang drafts with the models needed by this draft

Option 2 is the selected one at least for the moment.

In any case there are two steps to follow:

1. make the models analysis
2. design the Yang models

Share the Yang model proposal reasonably before the next call for review (in GitHub)

post-meeting notes